I think I'm ready to go all in on m4/3 and ditch my Nikon gear. As I look at my lenses, there are two that I thought might merit adapting for my E-M5:

Nikon 50mm f1.8D
Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro

Both have aperture rings, so at least I wouldn't have to deal with a Nikon G adapter. I know neither of these is an absolute stunning lens but for the cost of an adapter I would have a fast portrait lens and a 200mm macro, and I'm not inclined to spend big money on either of those categories to get native lenses (saving for a m.Z12-60 ).

I'd appreciate any advice as to whether I should adapt these or add them to the sale listing. Thanks!

Another problem with the 100mm macro, which I experience using my Nikkor 105, is that without a lens collar to mount it with the lens is VERY hard to steady. Most 200mm macro lenses have a lens tripod collar which I find myself wishing for on the Nikkor 105 used on a m43 body.

Just curious as to whether anyone has tried using a Nikon 10.5 fisheye with a G-adapter on their :43: adapter?

Click to expand...

Bert, I've got the 10.5 but I don't think I have ever seen a G adapter. How is it different from the D adapter? My concern is that there is no way to control the aperture. (And now I'll go search specifically for a G adapter.)

Bert, I've got the 10.5 but I don't think I have ever seen a G adapter. How is it different from the D adapter? My concern is that there is no way to control the aperture. (And now I'll go search specifically for a G adapter.)

Click to expand...

A G adaptor has a ring on it to control the aperture. I just ordered this one from Amazon, but it hasn't arrived yet, so I can't comment on it's usefulness.

Ha Bert! I had one and didn't realize it! I was ready to return it because I thought it was identical to my D adapter!

So I mounted the 10.5 on the adapter and gave a quick test indoors. I was not at all impressed because I had trouble focusing it - although maybe I didn't need to worry much about that. As a second approach I decided to try stopping down to give me lots of latitude on my focusing, but being indoors, that didn't work all that well - so I'm still not completely satisfied with the focusability - at least indoors.

What I did notice - big time - was that the fisheye effect was not nearly as obvious on the Mu43 (I assume because of the 2x crop factor and a resulting 21mm equivalence).

Ignoring all that for the time being, thanks for helping me realize that I had a G model.

Another problem with the 100mm macro, which I experience using my Nikkor 105, is that without a lens collar to mount it with the lens if VERY hard to steady. Most 200mm macro lenses have a lens tripod collar which I find myself wishing for on the Nikkor 105 used on a m43 body.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree to this at least for macro use. Flash is the best solution there.

I've been using an adapted Pentax 100mm macro on my Pany G1 and don't find it particularly difficult to use. It's nearly the weight of the 105 Nikkor though a bit leaner. I do, though, have a lot of experience with using 105s and 300s on film Nikons (read: long lenses without image stabilization). A 100mm on m43 without stabilization does require proper technique. It can't be used casually. Whether the E-M5's stabilization is effective on this lens or not is somewhat of a question. It probably helps a reasonable amount.

Personally, I feel the 50 is worth the cost of an adapter by itself, if only as a shallow DOF portrait lens. The 105 rides free on the same adapter so give it a try.

If all you are purely care about is the final image, then maybe just the macro.

Tokina makes a pretty good lens and manual focusing with a macro really doesn't screw-up the photographic experience for me.

If you care about more than the final image, if you think your style can best be reflected by manual focus, non-native lenses then go for it.

For me, I haven't any use for a lens that slows down the photographic process when there are native lenses, in that range which are extremely sharp, AF and AF quickly. I love the quick AF of the OM-D and see no reason not to use such a valuable photographic tool.

Ha Bert! I had one and didn't realize it! I was ready to return it because I thought it was identical to my D adapter!

So I mounted the 10.5 on the adapter and gave a quick test indoors. I was not at all impressed because I had trouble focusing it - although maybe I didn't need to worry much about that. As a second approach I decided to try stopping down to give me lots of latitude on my focusing, but being indoors, that didn't work all that well - so I'm still not completely satisfied with the focusability - at least indoors.

What I did notice - big time - was that the fisheye effect was not nearly as obvious on the Mu43 (I assume because of the 2x crop factor and a resulting 21mm equivalence).

Ignoring all that for the time being, thanks for helping me realize that I had a G model.

Click to expand...

Glad to help out with clarifying what equipment you already own, Tom.

Thanks for trying the 10.5 fish with the adapter. I'm surprised at the focusing problems you experienced. I plan to use it OUTdoors though and will stop down to f/11-16 or so to maximize DOF. Not surprised that the fisheye effect isn't as obvious. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing, since I'm thinking that perhaps this combo might work reasonably well as a wide-angle lens. (LOTS cheaper than a Panny 7-14 ).

Thanks for the input, everyone. Adapter has been ordered ; truth is that I'm 99% interested in using it with the macro. I don't shoot portraits much, and if that changed I'd buy a native lens for that. I'll post some images once I have them.

My 50mm 1.8 AIS mark III is pretty darn good. I had a Nikon 1.4 AIS, and to be honest I find the 50 1.8 to be sharper at f/2. The 50 1.4 AIS, was surgically sharp at f/5.6, but I found no point having such a fast lens at that slower aperture.

FWIW - I just received my Fotodiox Nikon 'G' to :43: adapter today, and immediately tried it out with my Nikon 10.5 fisheye lens. (I bought the adapter in hopes of using the fisheye as a "cheap" UWA lens combo on my E-M5. "Cheap" only because I already own the 10.5 fish....)

First results are positive! I find that the 10.5 fish is a bit wider than 12mm on my 12-50 Oly - perhaps 9 or 10mm? While still not as wide as a Panny 7-14, it's getting close and a lot cheaper for me. :smile: Interestingly, my 10-20 Sigma lens wasn't quite as wide as the fish - It fell somewhere between the fish and the Oly 12-50. Sure there's the fisheye distortion to deal with, but it's not as pronounced as on my Nikon camera because of the :43: smaller sensor. As usual, keeping the horizon at mid-frame also minimizes the distortion. I have not yet tried de-fishing using Lightroom, but expect it to work well.

That said, the Fotodiox adapter itself also seems MUCH better made than my Cowboy Studios (non-G) :43: adapter. The fit is much tighter and putting it on and off the lens and/or camera goes very smoothly.

So -- so far, I'm pleased. I hope to be able to test in the field in the next few days.

My 50mm 1.8 AIS mark III is pretty darn good. I had a Nikon 1.4 AIS, and to be honest I find the 50 1.8 to be sharper at f/2. The 50 1.4 AIS, was surgically sharp at f/5.6, but I found no point having such a fast lens at that slower aperture.

Click to expand...

I carry an older Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with me in my kit because I feel it gives very nice colors and contrast for an adapted lens, particularly at f/2. It's manual focus isn't the best, as has been noted; it isn't dampened for manual focus. But I got if for next to nothing, along with a Pentax 135 f/2.5 and a Nikkor 55mm macro f/2.8 that has a stiff focus. They are all great lenses having less than $100 in the whole bunch. They work well on my OM-D. Now they even work in video mode stabilized thanks to the latest firmware.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.